Cummins v. Jones , 363 F. App'x 593 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 27, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DEWAYNE CUMMINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 09-6217
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-00347-M)
JUSTIN JONES,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, Ronald DeWayne Cummins seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of the
habeas application he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a final order disposing
of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). In his application,
filed on March 31, 2009, Cummins raised four claims challenging the
constitutionality of his two 1987 convictions for first degree murder.
In a well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, a federal magistrate judge
noted Cummins’s conviction became final prior to the enactment of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Consequently,
Cummins had until April 24, 1997, to file his federal habeas petition. Hoggro v.
Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 1998). The one-year period could not be
statutorily tolled while Cummins pursued state post-conviction relief because he
did not seek that relief until September 26, 2008, more than ten years after the
one-year period of limitation had expired. Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135,
1142-43 (10th Cir. 2001).
Although Cummins argued the limitations period should be calculated
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) or § 2244(d)(1)(D) because he was never
informed of his right to file an appeal, the uncontroverted record undermined his
arguments. A minute order filed on January 16, 1987, in the District Court of
Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, reflects what happened at Cummins’s
sentencing proceeding. It states: “[Cummins] advised of his right to appeal and
that if he is financially unable to pay for the record the same will be furnished at
State expense. Defendant affirmatively waives his notice of appeal.”
The Report and Recommendation also examined whether Cummins was
entitled to equitable tolling of the AEDPA limitations period but ultimately
recommended the § 2254 petition be denied as untimely. After considering
Cummins’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, the district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Cummins’s § 2254
petition.
-2-
To be entitled to a COA, Cummins must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite
showing, he must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotations
omitted); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that
when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a
petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would
find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable
whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct). In evaluating whether
Cummins has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though
not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
claims. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. Although Cummins need not demonstrate his
appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than
the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations
omitted).
This court has reviewed Cummins’s appellate brief and application for
COA, the Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire
record on appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in
Miller-El and concludes Cummins is not entitled to a COA. Further, the record
-3-
establishes Cummins has failed to demonstrate any circumstance that justifies
equitable tolling. Thus, it is clear the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it refused to equitably toll the one-year limitations period. See Burger v.
Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1141 (10th Cir. 2003).
The district court’s resolution of Cummins’s habeas application is not
reasonably subject to debate and his claims are not adequate to deserve further
proceedings. Accordingly, Cummins has not “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This court denies Cummins’s request for a COA and dismisses this
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-